Portland cops are up in arms over a new "use of force rule." (Read it here.)
The policy is for supervisors to meet with those officers who have used force more frequently than most to determine if there are "... training gaps...issues... or other concerns..."
The policy hit police officers "like a ton of bricks," and caused them to be "upset, distraught and discouraged, to say the least."
Are we sure we want to put such delicate sensibilities on the street, carrying guns?
Aside from standard union posturing, ratcheting up rhetoric and portraying cops as victims, there is little news here, and little will happen.
Here's a study we would like to see: Every cop on the city's payroll should take a blood test once a year on a random basis for steroids. Any "use of force incident" should result in a blood test. If steroids are present, or any psychoactive drug, the cop looks for another job. Period. Zero tolerance. No disability pay, either.
Steroid use is well known in the macho culture of weight rooms, and "Roid rage" is well documented. Many reported "use of force" incidents by cops in Portland simply beg for a blood test for steroids.
It won't happen, of course. The unions are too powerful, the citizens too weak. They have the guns and poorly worded laws on their side, we have a free press and damn little else. We have made a trade-off, whether we like it or not.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Saving money by the gallon
If I am gentle with the throttle and shift into neutral on the way down long hills I can get more than 25 miles a gallon from my car. It is a "sports" car, capable of extreme performance, but mileage is not its strong point. It’s far better than my truck, though, and with gas close to $4 a gallon and diesel at $4.50, I think about it.
One friend, a teacher, has a large V-twin motorcycle. He loves it and rides nearly every day. Another, a professional pilot, rides his BMW motorcycle to work. He gets 50 miles per gallon. But his job is about 50 miles away, he has always ridden motorcycles, and he enjoys it, too.
I asked each of them a lot of questions. Then I sat down and thought about whether I should get a motorcycle.
One day, on his way home from work at more than 60 miles per hour, the pilot hit a deer. He was OK after tumbling and skidding down the highway because he always, always wears the full suit that kept him alive, at least not abraded to the bone, leaving flesh on the pavement, seriously and permanently disabled.
He got another bike and still rides. In truth, that deer could have killed him if he was driving his Honda sedan. But he does not ride at night. Period. Can't ride in winter when there is ice and snow on the road. The suit can be hot, or cold, and things get a little dicey, and miserable, in the rain.
But he gets about double the mileage as I do in my car.
Let's see. Ten miles to town and back for the mail. That is actually about a "20 miles-per-gallon" trip because of the stops and starts. So let's say I'd use half a gallon. A couple of bucks. And to be lazy with the math, let's say it is a buck in gas for the motorcycle.
If someone stood in my garage with a crisp dollar bill as I headed for my car and said, "... give you a buck if you take another five minutes to put on your gear, ride extra carefully a half mile down your gravel driveway, into town to the post office, take off your helmet but leave on the rest of your hot Kevlar suit, get the mail, put on your helmet, go to the store, take off your helmet, buy a dozen eggs to fit into the saddle packs, come home, up that gravel drive and take off all your gear."
My answer would be, um, no. Not that much fun.
And one reason I gave up motorcycles years ago is that I nearly killed myself three times on bikes in the 70s. Even if bikes are faster and better now, I am not.
So I have come to the conclusion that for me, at least, a motorcycle is not the answer to $4 per gallon gas. Not even $10 per gallon. Too much hassle, I don't love it enough, and I won't take my daughters on a bike.
As it is, driving less has cut my consumption way down, and kept my fuel cost to about what it was before the recent run up in prices. I make far fewer spontaneous 40 mile round trips to Bend, planning a little better. I don't make unnecessary "boredom runs" into Sisters for a newspaper or a chat with the local editor. And that leads to my reading more books and to less air pollution.
By 2010 I want a small, enclosed cockpit vehicle that will give me 100 miles per tank of compressed air that I can fill with the compressor in my garage or one under the seat. Three wheels would be fine if two are in front, but full crash cage is required, because I don't want to hassle with a suit or helmet, and I want it to seat three, though two of those can be cramped.
The day has arrived in America when our addiction to oil has driven us to choose between fuel or health care, fuel or food, or roads, or schools. But one of the strengths of this nation has been its ability to innovate our way out of crisis and into the future. It was only 20 years ago we gave the world the personal computer.
It will be interesting to see if we have the will and the brains to do something like that again.
One friend, a teacher, has a large V-twin motorcycle. He loves it and rides nearly every day. Another, a professional pilot, rides his BMW motorcycle to work. He gets 50 miles per gallon. But his job is about 50 miles away, he has always ridden motorcycles, and he enjoys it, too.
I asked each of them a lot of questions. Then I sat down and thought about whether I should get a motorcycle.
One day, on his way home from work at more than 60 miles per hour, the pilot hit a deer. He was OK after tumbling and skidding down the highway because he always, always wears the full suit that kept him alive, at least not abraded to the bone, leaving flesh on the pavement, seriously and permanently disabled.
He got another bike and still rides. In truth, that deer could have killed him if he was driving his Honda sedan. But he does not ride at night. Period. Can't ride in winter when there is ice and snow on the road. The suit can be hot, or cold, and things get a little dicey, and miserable, in the rain.
But he gets about double the mileage as I do in my car.
Let's see. Ten miles to town and back for the mail. That is actually about a "20 miles-per-gallon" trip because of the stops and starts. So let's say I'd use half a gallon. A couple of bucks. And to be lazy with the math, let's say it is a buck in gas for the motorcycle.
If someone stood in my garage with a crisp dollar bill as I headed for my car and said, "... give you a buck if you take another five minutes to put on your gear, ride extra carefully a half mile down your gravel driveway, into town to the post office, take off your helmet but leave on the rest of your hot Kevlar suit, get the mail, put on your helmet, go to the store, take off your helmet, buy a dozen eggs to fit into the saddle packs, come home, up that gravel drive and take off all your gear."
My answer would be, um, no. Not that much fun.
And one reason I gave up motorcycles years ago is that I nearly killed myself three times on bikes in the 70s. Even if bikes are faster and better now, I am not.
So I have come to the conclusion that for me, at least, a motorcycle is not the answer to $4 per gallon gas. Not even $10 per gallon. Too much hassle, I don't love it enough, and I won't take my daughters on a bike.
As it is, driving less has cut my consumption way down, and kept my fuel cost to about what it was before the recent run up in prices. I make far fewer spontaneous 40 mile round trips to Bend, planning a little better. I don't make unnecessary "boredom runs" into Sisters for a newspaper or a chat with the local editor. And that leads to my reading more books and to less air pollution.
By 2010 I want a small, enclosed cockpit vehicle that will give me 100 miles per tank of compressed air that I can fill with the compressor in my garage or one under the seat. Three wheels would be fine if two are in front, but full crash cage is required, because I don't want to hassle with a suit or helmet, and I want it to seat three, though two of those can be cramped.
The day has arrived in America when our addiction to oil has driven us to choose between fuel or health care, fuel or food, or roads, or schools. But one of the strengths of this nation has been its ability to innovate our way out of crisis and into the future. It was only 20 years ago we gave the world the personal computer.
It will be interesting to see if we have the will and the brains to do something like that again.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Past her shelf life
Yesterday while one of the twins was at violin lesson I ran into the county clerk's office to vote. Moving to the hilltop meant I had to change the address on my registration.
There is something about Hillary at this point that is just a little rancid. Maybe it's the lies (sniper fire), maybe the pandering (gas tax), maybe the do-whatever-it-takes-to-win (the racist card).
But it is hard to look at her now and not have the same sensation that one has in sniffing the carton of milk of expired date in the fridge. You know it's not fresh, you can't tell if it's sour, and wonder if a taste will ruin your day. Or the off-color burger. It doesn't seem too bad, but you know it isn't good.
It's one thing when it is the only food in the house, the temptation to hold your nose and cook it up and serve it up and deal with it. Kinda like the last few presidential elections, in fact. Politics as usual.
But now there is someone fresh, a natural leader, a very smart man who, though beat up a little by the process, doesn't seem tainted. With that available, why would we vote for Clinton?
Obama '08.
There is something about Hillary at this point that is just a little rancid. Maybe it's the lies (sniper fire), maybe the pandering (gas tax), maybe the do-whatever-it-takes-to-win (the racist card).
But it is hard to look at her now and not have the same sensation that one has in sniffing the carton of milk of expired date in the fridge. You know it's not fresh, you can't tell if it's sour, and wonder if a taste will ruin your day. Or the off-color burger. It doesn't seem too bad, but you know it isn't good.
It's one thing when it is the only food in the house, the temptation to hold your nose and cook it up and serve it up and deal with it. Kinda like the last few presidential elections, in fact. Politics as usual.
But now there is someone fresh, a natural leader, a very smart man who, though beat up a little by the process, doesn't seem tainted. With that available, why would we vote for Clinton?
Obama '08.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Perfect storms
Yesterday my twin middle school daughters were astounded at the nightly news as the three of us ate dinner. Earthquakes in China, cyclones in Burma, fires in Florida, tornadoes in Oklahoma. "It feels like the world is falling apart," said one.
When all these things threaten us at once, we want to see a larger hand at work, that global warming is ruining our world for human habitation. And it may be.
Or it may just be that many things happen at the same time. Always. Even items that are intertwined can have separate causes, and different solutions.
In a month we have had the home mortgage mess, a banking crisis, recession howling on the horizon, oil price inflation, and the threat of currency collapse.
Bernake said today that the banking system credit crunch, while far from over, may be easing. He may have saved the day, though longer term fixes probably need to be developed that will improve transparency and moderate leverage.
The mortgage mess, while related, is separate in the way it impacts individuals, a resolution may also be working its way through the system. That starts with, "Don't borrow more than you can pay back."
Be wary of quick fixes here from politicians that would reduce the ability of people to aspire to home ownership.
Yes, there is the recession. It is here, and it will be long lasting. The entire baby boom generation has been living beyond their means. The bills will be paid.
But there are many assets lying around, and it is not a bad thing for this group, especially, to learn to live with less. There is a certain joy in finding economies.
And it may be that it is in crisis that empathies sprout, perhaps, for those whose lives have been ravaged by storms beyond their control, those impacted by tectonic shifts in the gloabal economy, those treading water whose standard of living sinks as the price of everything climbs.
When all these things threaten us at once, we want to see a larger hand at work, that global warming is ruining our world for human habitation. And it may be.
Or it may just be that many things happen at the same time. Always. Even items that are intertwined can have separate causes, and different solutions.
In a month we have had the home mortgage mess, a banking crisis, recession howling on the horizon, oil price inflation, and the threat of currency collapse.
Bernake said today that the banking system credit crunch, while far from over, may be easing. He may have saved the day, though longer term fixes probably need to be developed that will improve transparency and moderate leverage.
The mortgage mess, while related, is separate in the way it impacts individuals, a resolution may also be working its way through the system. That starts with, "Don't borrow more than you can pay back."
Be wary of quick fixes here from politicians that would reduce the ability of people to aspire to home ownership.
Yes, there is the recession. It is here, and it will be long lasting. The entire baby boom generation has been living beyond their means. The bills will be paid.
But there are many assets lying around, and it is not a bad thing for this group, especially, to learn to live with less. There is a certain joy in finding economies.
And it may be that it is in crisis that empathies sprout, perhaps, for those whose lives have been ravaged by storms beyond their control, those impacted by tectonic shifts in the gloabal economy, those treading water whose standard of living sinks as the price of everything climbs.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Shut up, Peter
Oregon's Peter DeFazio has always been a loose canon, to be sure, and often off target. But he threatens the interests of those who agree with him when he gets it as wrong as he did yesterday.
Introducing Barak Obama, Defazio said of John McCain: "He says we need less regulation," said DeFazio in his introduction of Obama. "Hello! Wall Street mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout, Enron, but, you know, I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five and savings and loan scandal less regulation is better."
Defazio's ignorance of economics is striking. Especially for a member of congress who was in office during each of these issues, even if in the minority party.
Let's deal with Bear Stearns. The Fed did not "bail out" Bear Stearns, which was sold to another company for what, $10 per share and ceased to exist. Investors and employees of Bear Stearns got creamed. That's not a bail out.
By facilitating the sale for pennies on the dollar, the fed did make sure that those who had dealt with Bear Stearns were able to have contracts honored. This in turn helped others know that contracts would be honored. This probably kept the entire banking system from freezing up at a time when there were some serious concerns.
That's the problem with liberals Like DeFazio who are ignorant of economics: They are willing to destroy a system and ruin lives for the sake of their ideology.
Enron? A company run amuck. But as any cop or District Attorney will tell you, sometimes you can't prevent crime, you have to punish it. Especially true when the laws are gray, the economy is changing. There will always be bad guys willing to scam the system.
The American people voted in a president and especially a vice president willing to collude with Enron. Enron too, blew up, evaporated, died. The company got caught, ceased to exist (corporate capial punishment?) accounting standards improved, federal laws were passed.
Pre-regulation may have helped, but it may also have come at a cost even greater than that finally paid. It would have been even worse if great minds in economics like Peter Defazio were in charge.
The mortgage mess? Mr. Defazio, we need transcripts of all the speeches you made identifying the problems with mortgage backed securities and other derivatives when the asset bubble began in real estate. Thank you.
In the mean time, others will be analyzing the actual issues and crafting the minimum laws, probably reserve requirements for investment banks and greater disclosure, needed to deal with it.
Defazio helps no one when he shoots off his mouth, and his tendency toward self-righteousness makes him one of the less effective members of Congress. But right now, it could hurt the best candidate for president the left has had in a generation.
Shut up, Peter.
Obama in '08.
Introducing Barak Obama, Defazio said of John McCain: "He says we need less regulation," said DeFazio in his introduction of Obama. "Hello! Wall Street mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout, Enron, but, you know, I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five and savings and loan scandal less regulation is better."
Defazio's ignorance of economics is striking. Especially for a member of congress who was in office during each of these issues, even if in the minority party.
Let's deal with Bear Stearns. The Fed did not "bail out" Bear Stearns, which was sold to another company for what, $10 per share and ceased to exist. Investors and employees of Bear Stearns got creamed. That's not a bail out.
By facilitating the sale for pennies on the dollar, the fed did make sure that those who had dealt with Bear Stearns were able to have contracts honored. This in turn helped others know that contracts would be honored. This probably kept the entire banking system from freezing up at a time when there were some serious concerns.
That's the problem with liberals Like DeFazio who are ignorant of economics: They are willing to destroy a system and ruin lives for the sake of their ideology.
Enron? A company run amuck. But as any cop or District Attorney will tell you, sometimes you can't prevent crime, you have to punish it. Especially true when the laws are gray, the economy is changing. There will always be bad guys willing to scam the system.
The American people voted in a president and especially a vice president willing to collude with Enron. Enron too, blew up, evaporated, died. The company got caught, ceased to exist (corporate capial punishment?) accounting standards improved, federal laws were passed.
Pre-regulation may have helped, but it may also have come at a cost even greater than that finally paid. It would have been even worse if great minds in economics like Peter Defazio were in charge.
The mortgage mess? Mr. Defazio, we need transcripts of all the speeches you made identifying the problems with mortgage backed securities and other derivatives when the asset bubble began in real estate. Thank you.
In the mean time, others will be analyzing the actual issues and crafting the minimum laws, probably reserve requirements for investment banks and greater disclosure, needed to deal with it.
Defazio helps no one when he shoots off his mouth, and his tendency toward self-righteousness makes him one of the less effective members of Congress. But right now, it could hurt the best candidate for president the left has had in a generation.
Shut up, Peter.
Obama in '08.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Hillary -- Go home
Hillary Clinton committed two more significant misrepresentations and panderings in the last week. Let's not forget sniper fire.
Recently, she fibbed about a company called Magnaquench, indicating that George Bush was responsible for the loss of those jobs, that industry. Actually, Magnaquench was sold to the Chinese under the watch of her husband, Bill Clinton.
The other foolishness has to do with the repeal of the gas tax. It is bad economics, and it is pandering, and finally we have a significant enough difference between Clinton and Obama so that it is obvious on a policy basis that he deserves the vote and she does not.
When confronted about the fact that not a single significant economist thought the idea a good one, she said she didn't listen to economists. How stupid.
Frankly, we are sick of the excuse "that's just politics." (Better said here). And we are sick of her claim to competence based upon the fact that her husband was president. That qualifies Laura Bush. And if Clinton does want to claim that mantle, then she does not get to avoid credit for the failures.
Go home, Hillary. Your lust for power has twisted your judgment, clouded your bright mind. You have told too many lies, you have tried to become too many people. Get off the stage, and let the others get on with some important business.
Obama in 08.
Recently, she fibbed about a company called Magnaquench, indicating that George Bush was responsible for the loss of those jobs, that industry. Actually, Magnaquench was sold to the Chinese under the watch of her husband, Bill Clinton.
The other foolishness has to do with the repeal of the gas tax. It is bad economics, and it is pandering, and finally we have a significant enough difference between Clinton and Obama so that it is obvious on a policy basis that he deserves the vote and she does not.
When confronted about the fact that not a single significant economist thought the idea a good one, she said she didn't listen to economists. How stupid.
Frankly, we are sick of the excuse "that's just politics." (Better said here). And we are sick of her claim to competence based upon the fact that her husband was president. That qualifies Laura Bush. And if Clinton does want to claim that mantle, then she does not get to avoid credit for the failures.
Go home, Hillary. Your lust for power has twisted your judgment, clouded your bright mind. You have told too many lies, you have tried to become too many people. Get off the stage, and let the others get on with some important business.
Obama in 08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)